Gurdeep Singh vs Jaspal Kaur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Gurdeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jaspal Kaur – Respondent

Table of Content
1. judicial scrutiny under arbitration act is limited. (Para 1 , 8 , 11 , 39)
2. courts maintain minimum interference in arbitration. (Para 2 , 12 , 15 , 18 , 19)
3. background of partnership and arbitration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
4. appeal dismissed; delay applications rejected. (Para 10 , 30 , 42 , 46)
5. allegations of family settlement disputed. (Para 14 , 26 , 31 , 33)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

CM No.31027/2022 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

FAO (OS) (COMM) 176/2022 and CM APPL. 31028/2022 (stay)

1. Appellant impugns judgment dated 24.02.2022 whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') impugning the award dated 13.05.2015 has been dismissed.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant commenced his submissions by candidly referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2022)1 SCC 131 wherein the Supreme Court has clarified the scope of examination under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act in the following terms:

"28. This Court has in sev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTSANJEEV SACHDEVA, TUSHAR RAO GEDELAGurdeep Singh – AppellantVersusJaspal Kaur – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Gurdeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jaspal Kaur – Respondent